APPLE...Please lower the price of the watch to at least $200 dollars..Who here thinks

[Tycho24]

What, the demographic of people who are ready to pay between $650–$950 for Apple's current mobile phone, plus monthly contract fees? That demographic?

To be fair... if you are paying full price for the device, you are NOT also paying contract fees. Contract fees are what allow the carriers to subsidize the price down to $200-$500.

Nitpicking aside... I do agree with you that the target demographic is MUCH larger than people assume.
Somehow teens are coming up with $300 for their Beats headphones; why not $350 for an Apple Watch?

 

[T'hain Esh Kelch]

Force Touch

Yeah, it has one single piece of major technology breakthrough - As I said, not particularly interesting.

 

[Tanegashima]

You have to look at what I quouted. It seems like in a way you are agreeing with me. With Apple watch you aren't getting a premium watch, either. How does a circuit board compare to hundreds of meticulously crafted mechanical parts and jewels? In that vein Apple watch does compare to a digital watch and all you're really left to look at is the case. Well, I have a $250 Quartz in titanium that is super thin and weighs nothing. Not a premium watch by my standards but a nicer case than the sport for sure. It's 15 years old and still works and looks great. Many lower cost watches are made from stainless steel which confuses me when folks here expect a huge premium for the steel model.

We can go on to argue about the merits of digital versus mechanical but I think we know the answer when speaking in the context of premium watches. Apple watch is a nice product but I'd prefer to discuss it outside of that context. The marketing and hype is going to make that tough but it really is a different category of product. It needs to justify its expense there and not as "hey it's not a lot of money for a premium watch or piece of fancy jewelry."

$250 15 years ago weren't $350 today.

And Quartz watches aren't "mechanical" by what that means, they are electronic.

----------

Rubbish.

Have a look at the Seiko 5 range and Orient automatics. They may not be luxury watches but they are reasonably priced, good quality automatics which last for years.

Exactly, they aren't luxury watches, neither are exactly functional, as you already have a pocket watch (phone) and/or a watch that tells the time.

The Apple Watch is much classy than those watches, the basic model offers a CNC milled case, with an IonX anti-scratch glass that's domed, and interchangeable high-quality rubber band. The watch itself offers much more functionality.

Also, automatics "last for years", and then you have to send it a jeweler to get it rectified, and that's not free or even cheap.

 

[Tanegashima]

Throw away? Really? For $350 I'd expect to get an okay watch that would last me about 5-10 years.

You can't get what you want for $350.

You can get a cheap chinese manufactured automatic, with no polish at all, but a very poor watch (band, manufacturing standards, glass, case is chromed steel, the dial is basic printed, the hands are not hand-finished, etc...

Quartz movements can get you a marginally better watch, but still suck, and it's quartz.

You can get a semi-decent watch for $500, an Hamilton Jazzmaster or similar... but that's not great.

You can only get a good watch for $1K, I would pick the Oris Big Crown that sells for around that.

And now it's proper: swiss automatic movement, decently polished 316L steel case, sapphire crystal, proper dial, proper strap, finished hands with luminova, and a complication or two.

That's how it is. Sorry, you can't get a watch worth it for $350. Or if you can, for that price, the Apple Watch Sport is WAY more interesting.

Yes, it's electronic and will become obsolete, but it will still tell time like all those watches.

 

[OllyW]

You can't get what you want for $350.

You can get a cheap chinese manufactured automatic, with no polish at all, but a very poor watch (band, manufacturing standards, glass, case is chromed steel, the dial is basic printed, the hands are not hand-finished, etc...

Quartz movements can get you a marginally better watch, but still suck, and it's quartz.

You can get a semi-decent watch for $500, an Hamilton Jazzmaster or similar... but that's not great.

You can only get a good watch for $1K, I would pick the Oris Big Crown that sells for around that.

And now it's proper: swiss automatic movement, decently polished 316L steel case, sapphire crystal, proper dial, proper strap, finished hands with luminova, and a complication or two.

That's how it is. Sorry, you can't get a watch worth it for $350. Or if you can, for that price, the Apple Watch Sport is WAY more interesting.

Yes, it's electronic and will become obsolete, but it will still tell time like all those watches.

Of course you can get a decent watch for less than $350. :roll eyes:

$275 buys a Swiss made Christopher Ward, with a polished 316L case, anti-reflective coated sapphire crystal with a leather strap. It's a quartz and is a dress watch so hasn't got luminova but is a good quality watch that will last for years. It's also got a 6 year standard warranty.

$345 buys you their quartz chrono and this one comes with luminova hands and a complication or two.

 

[Mr. Buzzcut]

$250 15 years ago weren't $350 today.

And Quartz watches aren't "mechanical" by what that means, they are electronic.

----------



Exactly, they aren't luxury watches, neither are exactly functional, as you already have a pocket watch (phone) and/or a watch that tells the time.

The Apple Watch is much classy than those watches, the basic model offers a CNC milled case, with an IonX anti-scratch glass that's domed, and interchangeable high-quality rubber band. The watch itself offers much more functionality.

Also, automatics "last for years", and then you have to send it a jeweler to get it rectified, and that's not free or even cheap.

Being that such watches were more expensive to manufacture then I'd say the money would be less today. And, yes, of course, it is an electronic watch. I know what a Quartz movement is.

 

[kdarling]

Force Touch is, in my mind, the very biggest thing to happen to mobile device screens since multitouch. It can change how we interface with our technology significantly, adding a richer depth of interaction.

"Force Touch" reminds me of the Blackberry Storm's click screen. Something neat sounding but ends up being a pain compared to, for example, simply a long press.

I also think the idea of a watch gently tapping you on the wrist, completely unbeknownst to anybody around you, is a VERY clever and unique way of alerting you... miles better than vibrating, buzzing, chirping, lighting up, flashing, and the like.

This reminds me of how you can set up different vibrate patterns on some watches for different kinds of notifications. Almost nobody uses them.

Apple seems to be throwing a bunch of stuff against the wall and hoping something sticks for each potential customer. Which is actually not a bad strategy for a device category that normally has limited appeal.

The Apple Watch is much classy than those watches, the basic model offers a CNC milled case, with an IonX anti-scratch glass that's domed, and interchangeable high-quality rubber band.

CNC milled metal watch cases are pretty common from Chinese factories, according to Alibaba. Other suppliers long ago switched to powder injected case molding. Kind of like using LiquidMetal to mold a case instead of grinding it out.

"Ion-X" is just a fancy name for stuff like Gorilla Glass. Nowhere near as classy as sapphire.

Synthetic rubber (fuoroelastomer) also probably wouldn't strike most people as classy.

 

[Piggie]

I'm glad Apple does not make Tabasco Sauce.

Did you know it takes 3 years to make each bottle of that.

Can you imagine how Apple would phrase that in their marketing and what price they'd put on each bottle that's "3 years in the making!"

 

[Tanegashima]

Of course you can get a decent watch for less than $350. :roll eyes:

$275 buys a Swiss made Christopher Ward, with a polished 316L case, anti-reflective coated sapphire crystal with a leather strap. It's a quartz and is a dress watch so hasn't got luminova but is a good quality watch that will last for years. It's also got a 6 year standard warranty.

Image

$345 buys you their quartz chrono and this one comes with luminova hands and a complication or two.

Image

That last CW costs $415, not $345.

http://www.christopherward.com/watches/dress/c3scs-mk2.html

Anyway, watches are a little bit cheaper in US compared to Europe, due to tax.

But that's, a special case, because that's a "no middlemen" brand, with no money spent on marketing nonesense. Most other brands can't achieve those low prices, at least $700 for a comparable watch in a store...

 

[Julien]

That last CW costs $415, not $345.

http://www.christopherward.com/watches/dress/c3scs-mk2.html

Anyway, watches are a little bit cheaper in US compared to Europe, due to tax.

But that's, a special case, because that's a "no middlemen" brand, with no money spent on marketing nonesense. Most other brands can't achieve those low prices, at least $700 for a comparable watch in a store...

Here is the watch and it is $345 http://www.christopherward.com/c3sck-mk2.html

There are many 1000's of premium (lower end premium, but still premium and not "crappy throw away") watches in the $350 price range. Just do a simple Amazon search and you will see a plenty.

 

[Tanegashima]

CNC milled metal watch cases are pretty common from Chinese factories, according to Alibaba. Other suppliers long ago switched to powder injected case molding. Kind of like using LiquidMetal to mold a case instead of grinding it out.

No way!

CNC mill takes too much time and energy. CNC lathe, otherwise...

"Ion-X" is just a fancy name for stuff like Gorilla Glass. Nowhere near as classy as sapphire.

Better than Gorilla Glass. Yes, not as good as sapphire, but much better than mineral.

Synthetic rubber (fuoroelastomer) also probably wouldn't strike most people as classy.

Hublot?

Good rubber is classier than bad leather.

And it matches perfectly the "sport" in "apple watch sport".

 

[SusanK]

When you get to the real world where you don't depend on your parents to buy you expensive toys, $400 is going to be nothing. In a lot of your posts you complain a lot about not being able to afford an iPhone, MacBook Pro, etc. Grow up, get a job, and save up. It's worth it in the end.

OP, when you do get into the world and a real job please open and fully fund an IRA before even thinking of using your earnings for any of the above mentioned toys.

I promise you it is a much better use of your money. You will be better served.

 

[Tanegashima]

Here is the watch and it is $345 http://www.christopherward.com/c3sck-mk2.html

There are many 1000's of premium (lower end premium, but still premium and not "throw away"watches in the $350 price range. Just do a simple Amazon search and you will see a plenty.

Okay, forget the strap.

But NO, Christopher Ward is the exception to the rule.

You won't find Christopher Ward on Amazon, and now that you know, you're going to have an hard time getting a watch that match those.

And both aren't automatics, just quartz... life's too short for quartz.


Alas

http://www.christopherward.com/watches/aviation/c11-auto-svkt.html

See what I mean for an interesting watch? Even for a brand that tries the hardest to offer price/quality?

 

[Tycho24]

Yeah, it has one single piece of major technology breakthrough - As I said, not particularly interesting.

Ah.... gotcha.
The bar you have set for a product to even be considered "interesting" is that it has to have MULTIPLE major technology breakthroughs.

I'm glad I have a lower threshold of interest. It lets me marvel over each major tech breakthrough, without them having to be combined.

 

[Tycho24]

This reminds me of how you can set up different vibrate patterns on some watches for different kinds of notifications. Almost nobody uses them.

You are almost certainly misunderstanding the tech, if that's what it reminds you of. This is NOT a different way to vibrate that is optional & you can take it or leave it.

This is insurance against being a douche. Right now, in almost every iteration of smart watch... using it is a very rude and annoying public experience.
Even on vibrate, you can clearly hear a phone... even from all the way across a quiet room. You can certainly hear ringtones, even outside or in a crowd.
Nobody wants to see one of those Samsung monstrosities flashing & ringing incessantly in a single social scenario I can imagine.

A gentle tapping that likely would not be apparent to someone even holding your hand at the time is, to me, the sole difference between this type of product being viable in society long term, or being an embarrassing, obtrusive, socially awkward disaster like Google Glass.
I believe that in five years there will be precisely ZERO wearables that loudly blink, buzz, & vibe by default... as this will be the #1 most copied feature.

I honestly think you are GREATLY underestimating the "first to market with a non rude smartwatch" appeal.

 

[Rogifan]

You are almost certainly misunderstanding the tech, if that's what it reminds you of. This is NOT a different way to vibrate that is optional & you can take it or leave it.

I believe kdarling has already claimed Watch is using old tech so I'm sure there's very little about it that impresses him.

 

[kdarling]

You are almost certainly misunderstanding the tech, if that's what it reminds you of. This is NOT a different way to vibrate that is optional & you can take it or leave it.

An actuator is neither magic nor unique.

I believe that in five years there will be precisely ZERO wearables that loudly blink, buzz, & vibe by default... as this will be the #1 most copied feature.

Sounds like you've never owned a watch with quiet vibrate notifications. I assure you, nobody else notices it.

As for the idea that people will be polite and not enable lights and sounds, you must have missed the entire last decade of listening to phone owners with loud ringtones. I don't think that lack of politeness is going to change.

I honestly think you are GREATLY underestimating the "first to market with a non rude smartwatch" appeal.

There are already plenty of those.

The problem is, unless someone's sending you Morse code via taps, you're still gonna look at the screen to see what the tapping is about

 

[T'hain Esh Kelch]

Ah.... gotcha.
The bar you have set for a product to even be considered "interesting" is that it has to have MULTIPLE major technology breakthroughs.

I'm glad I have a lower threshold of interest. It lets me marvel over each major tech breakthrough, without them having to be combined.

Well, if you really consider the watch groundbreaking because you can press gently or hard on it, and have it two difference things, then good for you.

So far it doesn't do anything any other smart watch doesn't do, it has miserable battery life, and requires a phone for many of its operations - And you still call it a breakthrough device? I still don't see the point of it. *Shrug*

 

[Tycho24]

Well, if you really consider the watch groundbreaking because you can press gently or hard on it, and have it two difference things, then good for you.

So far it doesn't do anything any other smart watch doesn't do, it has miserable battery life, and requires a phone for many of its operations - And you still call it a breakthrough device? I still don't see the point of it. *Shrug*

Ah, the old "let's pretend like our debate is about something else" strategy!! I believe that is referred to as a straw man argument, correct?? When you can't validly argue against your opponent's point, so you attempt to argue a "straw man" of your creation instead.

You and I have NOT been discussing whether Apple Watch is "groundbreaking". Unless I'm confused, our convo is whether or not it is "interesting". In your words, the watch has a "piece of major technology breakthrough".
Our only debate was whether one major tech breakthrough is enough to make something interesting, or if it must have multiple tech breakthroughs to be interesting. Lol, be careful trying to put words in my mouth when the written record of what we've said lies directly above. =P

Side note:
Apparently, according to kdarling, I am unaware of some other smartwatches that actually already do have the features I find most appealing on Apple Watch. I must admit, I've only seen fitbit & Samsung watches in the wild... but in the dozen or so tech blogs I frequent I'm very, very surprised that I've stumbled across literally zero articles outlining the silent unobtrusive interaction that Apple seems to have espoused in this product, when referencing other smartwatches. I haven't read in any reviews "the Moto 360's gentle localized vibration, like most other smartwatches, is barely discernable... nobody can even tell you're wearing a smartwatch!", quite to the contrary- I read many reviews that state that the vibration is audible.
Also, though he is apparently unimpressed with Force Touch, I believe on a device designed to be interacted with for scant seconds... Force Touch makes much more sense than long press. In the arc of time... once we see the tech move to iPad and iPhone, I don't think ANYBODY will be able to argue the utility or this type of interaction.

 

[Night Spring]

I haven't read in any reviews "the Moto 360's gentle localized vibration, like most other smartwatches, is barely discernable... nobody can even tell you're wearing a smartwatch!", quite to the contrary- I read many reviews that state that the vibration is audible.
Also, though he is apparently unimpressed with Force Touch, I believe on a device designed to be interacted with for scant seconds... Force Touch makes much more sense than long press. In the arc of time... once we see the tech move to iPad and iPhone, I don't think ANYBODY will be able to argue the utility or this type of interaction.

Agreed about vibration in other smart watches. If there are watches out there with silent notification systems, I'd like to have links to product pages and/or reviews.

As for Force Touch, it's an interesting concept, but I wonder how well it will work, especially for older people and people with mobility impairments. I can imagine them easily tapping things too hard and getting unexpected results.

 

[cleirac]

OP, the cheap AWatch knock-offs are on sale and waiting for your bid at ebay etc. Go get 'em. If not, maybe, wait for BOGO buy one, get one free of those fugly smartwatches already flooding the market. /s

 

[yg17]

$350 is too darn expensive for a smartwatch?
When an iPad Mini sells for LESS
Why should a watch with little hours of battery and feature be sold for so high? Does Apple think it's fair to pretend to be like Starbucks or a company for the very rich? I understand profits and all but I mean the iPad Mini sells for less and it cost much more than to make such a tiny watch with a tiny LCD screen with no water protection or anything and bulky design too.
IF
THE
APPLE
WATCH
WAS
AT
MOST
$200
It would be a very fair deal. I hope Apple sees this. I am only criticizing it's cons because the high price. It's a great 1st gen watch and it would get better in the future but the most basic shouldn't cost that much. I can understand if it had premium quality like the sapphire and such but the basic should cost at the least $150-$200

All you do is post about how Apple products are too expensive. It's getting old.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1803495/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1802163/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1802212/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1780525/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1746226/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1657904/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1535771/

Obviously Apple must be doing something right with pricing.

 

[firewood]

$200 is a useless price

I spend under $100 for knock-about watches to time my swimming pool and gym workouts (etc.) I spend over $1000 for watches to wear to the type of events where the women wear far more expensive jewelry and wedding rings (etc.). Other professionals have similar spending habits.

In between sub-$100 and $1000+ is a pretty useless price range.

I might buy an Apple watch in that middle price range in the hopes that Apple will provide a true native Watch SDK within one year (as currently, WatchKit apps really mostly run on an iPhone).

 

[Piggie]

I spend under $100 for knock-about watches to time my swimming pool and gym workouts (etc.) I spend over $1000 for watches to wear to the type of events where the women wear far more expensive jewelry and wedding rings (etc.). Other professionals have similar spending habits.

In between sub-$100 and $1000+ is a pretty useless price range.

I might buy an Apple watch in that middle price range in the hopes that Apple will provide a true native Watch SDK within one year (as currently, WatchKit apps really mostly run on an iPhone).

Why does the actual price of a watch matter to you?

Is not how it works, and how it looks the two only criteria that are important for a watch, or is there something about you personally that makes you feel the need to wear something of a certain financial value to make you feel happier about yourself as a person ?

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

I am a big watch enthusiast and own dozens and for me I would not invest more than £150 in a smart watch that I thought could end up being redundant within 3 years. None of my other watches will go out of date yet the iWatch will likely be replaced with a better version within a year. On that note I would rather keep my submariner as my daily driver knowing it is a 'timeless' classic. Sorry Apple